We have been discussing Russian artists and athletes blackballed for failing to publicly denounce Putin of his invasion of Russia. Despite the support that most of us have expressed for Ukraine against this unprovoked and savage attack, there is a danger that we are losing a war at home against free speech. The Russian invasion has added new allies in a growing anti-free-speech movement to censor and blackball dissenting voices. The latest such controversy involves Sergey Karjakin, a Russian grandmaster who supports the Russian invasion. He has been banned from competitions for six months by the International Chess Federation (FIDE). He has been banned due to the unpopularity of his political views — an act that should be denounced by anyone who values free speech.
It is important to note that Karjakin is not being banned as a Russian competitor. Various organizations have cut off Russian athletes from representing the country or doing so under the Russian flag in light of the invasion.
Rather, Karjakin is being barred due to his public statements.
Karjakin has an interesting profile because he has represented both Ukraine and Russia in international competitions. He was born in Crimea and represented Ukraine in three Chess Olympiads and Russia for five of the events.
Karjakin considers himself Russian and views supporting the war a patriotic duty. He tweeted:
“Many people ask if I regret my public support of the special operation? After all, I have already lost invitations to Western tournaments and may lose an invitation to the candidates tournament. My answer is simple. I am on the side of Russia and my President. No matter what happens, I will support my country in any situation without thinking for a second!”
His “my country, right or wrong” approach led to a furious outcry and the FIDE ban. The organization cited its “Code of Ethics” and particularly Article 2.2.10 as the basis for the punitive action. That rule is a nightmare of ambiguity for those concerned about free speech and corporate censorship:
“In addition, disciplinary action in accordance with this Code of Ethics will be taken in cases of occurrences which cause the game of chess, FIDE or its federations to appear in an unjustifiable unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation.”
Let’s break that down: any “case of occurrence” (whatever that means) that “causes” (however that is defined) “unjustifiable unfavorable light” (whatever that constitutes) to FIDE “reputation” (whatever that is). It could have been simplified by saying that “we reserve the right to bar anyone who says anything we do not like.”
In this case, FIDE declared that
“EDC First Instance Chamber, formed by Yolander Persaud (Guyana), Ravindra Dongre (India), and Johan Sigeman (Sweden) as Chairperson, unanimously decided as follows:
The statements by Sergey Karjakin on the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine has led to a considerable number of reactions on social media and elsewhere, to a large extent negative towards the opinions expressed by Sergey Karjakin…
A necessary condition for the establishment of guilt is that the statements have reached the public domain. This concept, with respect to disrepute clauses in sport, is not the world at large but the sport in which the accused engages, such as chess. Information concerning the accused’s conduct which is not published in the media, but which can be learnt without a great deal of labour by persons engaged in the chess world or a relevant part of it, will be in the public domain and satisfy the public exposure element. The EDC Chamber is comfortably satisfied that this condition is fulfilled in this case.”
The EDC Chamber finds, against the background given above, on the standard of comfortable satisfaction that the statements of Sergey Karjakin, which, by his own choice and presentation, can be connected to the game of chess, damage the reputation of the game of chess and/or FIDE. The likelihood that these statements will damage the reputation of Sergey Karjakin personally is also considerable.”
It is particularly chilling that Karjakin is sanctioned because his opposing viewed “reached the public domain.” There is another word for that: free speech.
The board opted not to punish Sergei Shipov, another Russian grandmaster who posted public statements of support for the invasion. The distinction only magnifies the arbitrary elements in this action:
“In comparison with Sergey Karjakin, Sergei Shipov is considerably less known and has, therefore, a less powerful platform. The statements made by Sergei Shipov are also of a slightly different and less provocative character than the ones made by Karjakin. In an overall evaluation of the potential negative impact on the game of chess and/or FIDE, the EDC Chamber is not sufficiently convinced that Sergei Shipov’s statements qualify as a breach of article 2.2.10.”
So both grandmasters publicly spoke in favor of the invasion but FIDE found that Shipov was “less provocative” in his public comments despite holding the same opinion.
FIDE is joining companies and groups that claim to be fighting tyranny by punishing those who exercise their freedom of speech. It is perfectly Putinesque.
Wartime is often the most dangerous time for free speech. The desire to silence others rests like a dormant virus in any society. People prone to censorship find license in such times. Few object in such times. After all, no one wants to be accused of being soft on Russia or, worse yet, a traitor. Even the barring of political parties in Ukraine by Zelenskyy has barely attract attention, let alone criticism.
The war in Ukraine is costing humanity greatly with increasing evidence of war crimes and untold suffering. We should not add free speech to the prohibitive costs of this war. This is not about supporting Ukraine. It is about fighting for the freedoms that define a people.
We can do both. We can stand with Ukraine and free speech.
President , Please tell President Putin,
Please excuse you & your people & the millions of ignorant Americans for they are out of their minds from Govt Propaganda or they are completely mentally ill & out of their minds like most in Washington DC. You understand right, most went nuts already, you know right?
( Pro Tip, it’s to late, USA Leaders Igits have already pulled the trigger! Phk’rs. Get to your Hole!!!! )
*************
Sting: Russians (Lyric Video) HD/HQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S2bwE_RYRA
******
“God Damn you all to Hell!”
test
xyz
It is absolutely vital that you support “the current thing.” You know it’s the right thing to do . . .
When the president of the Russian Federal Assembly gave a speech supporting the invasion of Ukraine, was this free speech or the act of a war criminal? Where is the line, Mr. Turley?
The Democrats and RINOs abhor Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment. They love the crime part, but hate the punishment part, as punishment should apply only to their political opposition and never to themselves, regardless of their crimes.
Mikhail Baryshnikov, perhaps the leading male classical dancer of the 1970s and 1980s, is opposed to imposing sanctions on fellow artists or sports stars. This month, conductor Valery Gergiev and operatic soprano Anna Netrebko were among the latest of those who lost prestigious work in the west because they didn’t comply with the Democrats’ and RINOs’ wishes that they say nasty things about Vladimir Putin.
“An open exchange in the arts is always a good thing,” Baryshnikov said. “I don’t think it’s right to put the weight of a country’s political decisions on the backs of artists, or athletes, who may have vulnerable family members in their home country. For people in those exposed positions, neutrality is a powerful statement.”
“In addition, disciplinary action in accordance with this Code of Ethics will be taken in cases of occurrences which cause the game of chess, FIDE or its federations to appear in an unjustifiable unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation.
Let’s break that down: any “case of occurrence” (whatever that means) that “causes” (however that is defined) “unjustifiable unfavorable light” (whatever that constitutes) to FIDE “reputation” (whatever that is). It could have been simplified by saying that “we reserve the right to bar anyone who says anything we do not like.””
*********************************************
I’d break it down this way: “disciplinary action … will be taken in “cases of occurrences (I’d go with just a box of occurences but what do I know) “which cause the game of chess (we’re not just defending ourselves people but the whole damn game of chess – no more will you be able to say of chess, like ones does of backgammon, that it ‘is the cruelest game’), FIDE or its federations (anybody who likes chess) to appear in an unjustifiable unfavorable light” (so no pink lighting on set and what color you go with better show off my dimples. No backlighting), “and in this way damage its reputation.” (so you can damage it any other way you like but lay off the shiny stuff).
See clear as mud.
“We can do both. We can stand with Ukraine and free speech.”
************************************
Probably so but what we can’t do is stand with Ukraine and against tyranny. Zelensky has outlawed 11 Ukrainian opposition political parties guaranteeing his re-election, supported an army commander who threatened to castrate Russian prisoners as he would a cockroach and shown demeaning videos of POWs. That makes Zelensky a pure tyrant.
“My answer is simple. I am on the side of Russia and my President.”
Did anyone bother to ask him why?
Sergey Karjakin: “No matter what happens, I will support my country in any situation without thinking for a second!”. That’s a worrisome assertion in my view.
“He has been banned due to the unpopularity of his political views — an act that should be denounced by anyone who values free speech.”
So “free speech” means that one cannot criticize or take action against a person who supports a dictator’s invasion?!
Free speech is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
That “take action against” someone for their political views is the part Turley said should be denounced. He’s all for free speech, even criticism, but banning people for their political views is wrong.
“. . . banning people for their political views is wrong.”
So under “free speech,” I can speak out against a person. But I cannot take action against that person?
Life is thought and action. Take away action, and you have empty and useless speech.
Do you really think the freedom of speech is empty and useless unless you can do something to someone you don’t agree with? Define “action”. Should banks cancel his accounts? Should he lose his job? Where do we draw the line on such actions and who decides? As far as I can tell he didn’t commit a crime. At least not here in America. Had Karjakin said he was against the war he might have faced some action in Russia. The FIDE didn’t have to ban him. They could have issued a statement in response and explained that Karjakin’s remarks don’t represent the organization, even condemned his remarks and explained why. Isn’t that an action? Instead, they reacted “to reactions on social media” like a lot of weak kneed organizations and corporations here in America.
“[W]ho decides?”
The private individual or organization that made the judgment.
Justice requires evaluation and action. No action is a pretense of justice.
“[B]anning people for their political views is wrong.”
Suppose I own a small business. “Rick” is an open racist, an anti-Semite, and a member of a neo-Nazi party.
Are you seriously claiming that it is wrong for me to ban him from working at my company?
“We can stand with Ukraine and free speech.”
They expect a person who considers himself a Russian citizen to say nothing or mimic the words said by an ‘enemy’ of Russia rather than stating his own.
Russia, without question, is doing horrible things, but why not be honest and instead of banning free speech, ban Russia from the games. Instead, they double down and prove themselves to be incompetent.
Yet another example of how “totalitarian” our societies have become, yet we do not see the danger because we instead offer Putin as a bogy-man.
Totalitarian is a much abused term, yet, as Stanley Payne observed, a useful one. He defined it as a state sytem which “attempts to exercise total control over all significant aspects of all major institutions,” from the courts to the churches, the schools, the military, and (had he written in 2022) social media. I suspect we have an examples not only in Karjakin’s suspension, but the suppression of any opinion not congruent with the official line, the firing and shunning of Russian artists and athletes, the monotone nature of ‘news’ coverage, and the knee-jerk reaction of every important institution of Russia’s action, without any effort to understand why Moscow decided to invade a neighboring country. The control exercised is indirect, but still damaging to the values that the West claims to hold dear, yet another casualty of war (even if economic and undeclared).
Payne’s definition is from is Fascism. Comparison and Definition (Univ. of Wisc. Press, 1980). He is one of a handful of American scholars worth reading on Fascism and fascisms, and for those interested in what Fascism actually was, this is a quick read based on studies by other scholars, contemporaries, and real Fascists.
Given cancel culture, suppression of speech, exclusion and firings based on political views, efforts to indoctrinate everyone from army recruits to kindergartenerss, and the claim that arguments and emotions are more important than facts, have we perhaps come full circle? After defeating the Fascists seventy years ago, have we unwittingly become our old enemy, de facto, if not yet de jure?
Russia fits your definition of fascism.
Actually, it doesn’t. The present Russian state has authoritarian elements and a good deal of corruption, but so does Ukraine, like scores of other countries. It has never had “democracy” nor even representative government with universal suffrage. Even so, it is far from fascist, and certainly not totalitarian. But just as you cannot expect states in Africa or the Middle East to magically become democratic, you cannot expect Russia to be Britain (where they have weak guarantees for free speech) or the US (where we reguarly seem to slip into McCarthyism). Their cultures and histories shape their current politics (think Saudi Arabia or Iran), and so do the cultures and histories of Russia and Ukraine, the Baltic and Balkan states, and many states in the Western Hemisphere and Asia. We might wish the world was just like us, but it ain’t.
Nor are we. Merkel was in power as long as Putin, many of our congressmen and congresswomen treat their offices as sinecures, appointed bureaucrats in government leverage theirr positions into lucrative private positions, and we have our own ruling cliques and elite families (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy), who enjoy perquisites similar to those of the old nobility. Our media is not polarized so much as it is bought and paid for, and many reporters are happy to bask in the reflected glory of the local, regional, and national elites. Too many ‘activists’ in both the United States and the EU seek to compel or suppress speech, to monitor and direct our private lives, to shape our thinking, to indoctrinate our children, and to use the ‘rule of law’ to coerce non-conformists to toe the line . . . not exactly what J. S. Mill had in mind when he wrote On Liberty, or Jefferson & cpy. intended with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
If you only read English, the information available to you is limited, something I did not realize until I read my first study on international relations in the Western Hemisphere in Spanish. We really are gringos to an awful lot of our southern neighbors, in part because we have invaded their countries many times. I count fifty incursions prior to 1965, and then there are the Philippines and Hawaii and various islands in the Pacific, not counting the comment which went unremarked recently that if we are returning land, we need to return 51 percent of Mexico, from Texas to California, which we obtained by waging a war of aggression in 1848. Heck, we helped Churchill defeat the Italians and Germans, but not to maintain his empire as W. R. Louis showed in his Imperialism at Bay: The United States and the De-Colonization of the British Empire, 1941-1945 (Oxford, 1986).
“The desire to silence others rests like a dormant virus in any society. People prone to censorship find license in such times.” Very well said. An even more dangerous masking effort.
How in good conscience can any informed person call this war “unprovoked”?
The US CIA worked covertly in concert with the European Union to subvert elections in Ukraine, hoping to engulf her vast resources within the EU Ponzi scheme, to be protected by NATO.
Putin was as provoked by that as JFK was provoked by Soviet missiles in Cuba.
Even if why you said is true, that would still not even come close to being a legitimate reason for what Russia is doing.
Russias unprovoked attack on Ukraine, has created an avalanche of formal punishments for any opinion other than the globally approved narrative.
Preventing dissenting speech pushes me to consider I am a victim of propaganda.
The only way to learn is to hear all sides and listen to their supporting reasons.
In this case, if the man is voicing support out to patriotism, that does little to convince me the attacks are founded on acceptable circumstances. So I discount that single voice. Rinse and repeat hundreds of times as my opinion coalesces into an informed opinion.
In the United States, it is stupid to listen to the news as delivered by the Federal Govt’s administrative blob. They lie to advance an agenda, well hidden from view. An agenda well hidden from public view
It is not about narrative or politics or propaganda. It is about basic values. If you are for crimes against humanity then you need to be shunned from normal society.
Sammy, you have worse reading comprehensions skills than my grand children.
He never said he was for crimes against humanity. There were over 100k Iraqi civilians killed during the Iraq War. Was is in itself a crime against humanity. Should everyone who supported that war be shunned from normal society including the current President of the U.S.?
Sgt Mjr @ 10:17
Yes, and many of our leaders should be prosecuted as war criminals for the US service members they sent to their deaths and mutilation as well as for the civilians we have killed. Wars of aggression are rightfully considered the worst of all war crimes because they encompass all the rest.
The decimal place can be moved on the number of civilians we have killed since 911, the number is more like 1 million. We have passed Idi Amin as a mass murderer and are catching up to Pol Pot.
Civilian casualties are expected in war. Targeting civilians is not. I don’t agree with your statement concerning “many of our leaders”. If someone committed a crime then they should be prosecuted.
Chess has never held itself out to be a ‘sport.’ Chess has always been a ‘game,’ a game in which the players of the game match brain-power. One’s physical attributes are not likely to determine the outcome, one’s muscle mass and muscle control likewise not a required attribute to play a game of Chess.
I realize the purists will take issue, as will the folks who believe Tiddly-winks is also an international sport, or Rubik’s Cube contests are sports matches.
Say what you will — if the chess federation is worried about its ‘reputation,’ they should at least be honest about it — chess is not a sport.
This is sophistry
I wonder how many Americans got canceled for supporting the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam.
Michael @ 8:39
There were not many who supported North Viet Nam, so the number cancelled could only have been low. However, there were millions of us who rightfully opposed the US invasion, fabrication and support of a corrupt South Vietnamese puppet “government” in a war that killed close to 2 million people.
Many of us spent considerable time in D.C. on the Mall assembling and petitioning our government to help it see the error of its ways and encouraging it to end that war. The government eventually listened, but it took years. Along the way there were many phony accusations that we treasonously supported North Viet Nam, demands to repress free speech and assembly, along with boatloads of warmongering propaganda much like drove our wars of aggression after 911 and the current neocon warmongering hysteria over Ukraine today.
The guy came out in favor of Russian war crimes. The Chess Federation has very right not to be associated with someone who is likes crimes against humanity. Free speech is about not having the government go after you, private people and groups can kick you to the curb all they want.
Petty tyrants signaling virtue.
Or perhaps these people took an opportunity to settle an old score.
In any case, we see the dangers of tyranny.
Lefties, take note.
Turley says:
“Even the barring of political parties in Ukraine by Zelenskyy has barely attract attention, let alone criticism.”
Speaking of barring free speech which has NOT escaped Turley’s attention BUT which he has not criticized:
“DirecTV, Which Plans to Drop OAN, Is Picking Up Fox Nation”
https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/directv-fox-nation-oan-distribution-1235210533/
DirecTV’s cancelling of Turley’s employer’s competitor on the Right is mystifyingly ignored by him. Turley would surely have criticized the actions of Little brother DirecTV had it planned to silence Fox’s free speech by dropping it from its channel line-up. I suppose the fact that DirecTV is adding Fox Nation in lieu of OAN did not influence Turley’s decision to ignore this infringement of OAN’s freedom of speech. Not much…
As far the chess master is concerned, I would not ban him from competition, but I would not shake his hand if I was to play against him. Refusing his outstretched hand would express my disdain for his support of an apparent war criminal.
There you go again, Fox hunting. The Professor does not need to answer for Fox, that’s what being a consultant means. He testified in the impeachments of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Does that mean he is a tool of congress and should answer for every idiocy that comes from those hallowed halls. I doubt he has influence on policy decisions at Fox or Congress.
On the other hand I do agree with your statement about not banning the Chess Master from competing but refusing to shake his hand afterwards. That should be sufficient to register your contempt for the Chess Master’s position.
GEB says:
“I doubt he has influence on policy decisions at Fox or Congress.”
Turley has more influence on Senate Republicans than you think. He is their go-to Constitutional law professor.
“Jonathan Turley, professor who called Trump impeachment trial unconstitutional, to attend Senate GOP luncheon”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/professor-said-impeachment-trial-is-unconstitutional-to-attend-senate-gop-lunch-tuesday
As for Fox, Turley is a “yes-man.” He is called upon to bolster their narratives when he shares the opinions of the prime time hosts. When he does not, his presence is not requested. It’s not good TV to watch a law professor ARGUE with a Fox host!
There’s no evidence DirecTV infringed on OAN’s freedom of speech.
Sergeant claims:
“There’s no evidence DirecTV infringed on OAN’s freedom of speech.”
Except for the fact that it is removing OAN from its line-up:
“OAN panics as DirecTV drops network, asks viewers to find “dirt” on AT&T chairman”
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/01/oan-panics-as-directv-drops-network-asks-viewers-to-find-dirt-on-att-chairman/
“Former President Trump and some Republican lawmakers blasted DirecTV. “Maybe what we should do is not use AT&T,” Trump said at a rally Saturday, according to the Times of San Diego. “All I can tell you is the people that are telling the truth in America like One America News are being threatened,” Trump also said. “I love One America News… I watch it all the time.”
We don’t know what Turley thinks because all we hear from him is
Crickets….
That’s not evidence DirecTV infringed on OAN’s freedom of speech. I’d suspect that if he thought this was a free speech issue he would tell us what he thinks. I’d also bet that he doesn’t care what you think nor should he.
Meyer
No, Meyer is obsessed with criticizing anonymous liberal commenters, and Sergeant isn’t. Meyer has sometimes posted under other names, especially during his transition from Allan to Meyer after the 2020 election, but Meyer doesn’t generally use other names.
Meyer has irritated me for quite a while. I will no longer engage him. If Sergeant Major is not Meyer, he is a good approximation. I can identify Meyer because talking with him is like talking to a brick wall. He doesn’t listen.
Meyer seems incapable of engaging in a good faith discussion with liberals, and you’re wise to ignore him.
I can engage in reasonable discussions with some here, but there are those who are best avoided altogether.
Why would anyone want to listen to anything you have to say?
Generally, you insult with a broad brush, insult Turley and then fawn over him, and insult Fox news. When you engage in a subject, you have to retract what you said and say ‘I was joking’ or admit to not knowing much of anything.
You are off-topic and out of your mind.
Then, by all means, ignore me.
Looks like you are getting the idea. Defeat bad speech with good, not bans.
Your refusal to shake his hand would be an example of speech employed to counteract his repugnant ideas.
ti317 says:
“Looks like you are getting the idea. Defeat bad speech with good, not bans.”
I reserve the right to ignore and refuse to provide a platform for known liars and hateful speech. DirecTV should drop OAN for continuing to push the false narrative that the election was stolen.
I only bring it up to highlight Turley’s hypocrisy since he argues that no speaker or media company should be cancelled. However, when it comes to OAN- a network which attacks Fox for not being sufficiently loyal to Trump- we hear crickets from Turley when it has been silenced.
Based on your reserved rights Turley shouldn’t provide you a platform either but he doesn’t think like you. He supports freedom of speech and the press.
You are Meyer. I know how muddled you think
“I only bring it up to highlight Turley’s hypocrisy”
Again with Turley’s hypocrisy? We can all see that you bury yourself in hypocrisy and now are trying to unload some of it onto Turley. It doesn’t work. It makes you look like a fool. Then again, what you like like is what you are.
Meyer
Sometimes good speech defeats bad speech, but other times it does not.
Good speech didn’t defeat bad speech in Nazi Germany, and it hasn’t in Putin’s Russia. Perjury is defeated by making it illegal, not by good speech.
What a sad sack you are living with intellectual deprivation. The idea is to permit good speech to defeat bad speech. Nazi Germany canceled good speech and won. What did they win? Putin’s Russia canceled good speech, and where are they today?
The problems occur when good speech is NOT permitted to exist. You have things backward suomynona.
Fascism where if you, businesses, government,etc disagree with them…you destroy them and their friends using every lever of society. Collective punishment is a crime…but that doesn’t stop the left!